Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting)

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We will have one final, brief question—hopefully with a brief answer—from Darren Paffey.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

Q The Bill seeks to move on from a fixation on structures and get back to outcomes and wellbeing. If I have understood your earlier comments, you welcome that. Do you think the Bill will sufficiently break that link between a child’s background and their future success? Do you believe that the measures will move us closer to that?

Dame Rachel de Souza: I am delighted with the measures for vulnerable children. I am hopeful for the measures on the schools side, but we need to see a bit more of a vision before I can answer. What is that system going to look like? My recommendation would be focusing on how, in local areas, we can build up and strengthen our local authorities so that they can be the champions of children, particularly vulnerable children, and convene the trusts and the schools so that everyone can work together to share their expertise. If we do that, we will have a great shot at it, and I think it could be really good.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of this session. I know there are other Members who want to get in; I will try to call you during the next session.

Examination of Witnesses

Sir Martyn Oliver, Lee Owston and Yvette Stanley gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Finally, Darren Paffey. We have about 90 seconds left.

[Darren Paffey]

Q Clauses 13 and 14 make provision for the financial oversight of care providers, and clause 9 looks at better regional arrangements for accommodation. What are your views on how effective that will be in improving provision for the care of children?

Katharine Sacks-Jones: As I said earlier, these are welcome measures. There is very little oversight of the providers at the moment, so a number of measures will improve that oversight. The missing piece is that if you do not tackle sufficiency, the power imbalance will still sit in the hands of the providers who provide the majority of homes for children. Greater oversight needs to come alongside improving sufficiency. One way to do that is to have a national strategy, which is missing at the moment. We think the Bill is an opportunity to introduce that.

[Darren Paffey]

Q To what extent does the regional co-operation deal with sufficiency?

Katharine Sacks-Jones: I think there are benefits to be had in regional commissioning. We are concerned to ensure that provision for children is not then condensed in certain areas of a region, which could mean children still being moved great distances. We would like to see a safeguard in the Bill around not moving children far from home unless it is in their interest, to go alongside the new regional co-operation arrangements.

Lynn Perry: I echo some of what Katharine said there. There has to be a focus on outcomes for children in care, and in particular for all providers to be able to demonstrate that they are taking the sort of steps that Katharine describes, which would lead to better outcomes for children. We need to recognise that with 80% of existing provision being provided privately, any sudden exit might also cause some challenges for children. So, the sufficiency piece is really important, but we need to rebuild what I reluctantly describe as the market, to provide care for children in a different way. That will take some time.

[The Chair]

I understand that this session should run until 3.15 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

Q How do you keep it affordable and make sure it is not a barrier?

Rebecca Leek: School uniform is generally very affordable. You are asking a primary school, so we do not have blazers, but certainly it is very affordable. It has never been an issue. We also give away free uniform. I think there are problems in the Bill with the uniform wording.

[Darren Paffey]

Q I want to pick up on the previous point about the curriculum floor. I wonder whether the panel agree that the opportunities of a broad, balanced curriculum that is modern, engaging and offered regardless of the badge and branding over the school door should be available to young people everywhere. Would you consider that a good thing, or would you consider the Bill—as I think Rebecca described it—a reactive, retrograde step?

Rebecca Leek: I do believe that a broad entitlement for children is really important. What I am concerned about is that, first, we do not know what will be in the national curriculum and, secondly, schools sometimes need a little bit of flexibility to maybe not do a couple of subjects because they are addressing something that has happened within their school community over a couple of years or months or a term.

I had a school in south Essex in a trust that I led where we needed to reduce the curriculum for a little while. It was post covid. You may say, “Well, that was covid,” but we do not what is coming. I needed to work with some children in key stage 2 on a slightly narrower curriculum to really help them with their maths and English so that they would be able to access secondary school. That is what we decided to do, and it was an academy school, so I had the freedom to address that. I think that it was a moral duty for me to make sure that they got those core skills, so that they would be able to access a broad and balanced curriculum in the secondary.

I am just very worried about there being these kind of concrete bricks. If there is permissiveness and agility within it, then that is fine. I do agree with the concept of an entitlement for children to a broad and balanced curriculum.

[Darren Paffey]

Q I think we all recognise that there are sometimes staffing issues in particular curriculum areas, but if something gets taken out of the curriculum, particularly at secondary but sometimes at primary, does that not risk equating to a freedom to shut off that opportunity for future generations of children? I know from having taught modern languages that when you lose those staff, you end up not replacing them, and you do not replace the subject on the curriculum. Is that not a risk?

Rebecca Leek: It is a risk. Basically, sometimes schools have to do things that are a bit of an emergency, or to handle a crisis situation. We do not have a factory line of ready-prepared teachers that are already available. We also have fluctuations in pupil numbers. Some years we have to put together years 2 and 3, sometimes we have to put together years 4 and 5, and then the next year we have to put together years 2, 3 and 4 because of the pupil numbers. So we just have to have a certain level to be able to work around. We do not want headteachers to always be worrying in the back of their heads, “Am I allowed to do this? Am I not allowed to do this?” There just needs to be a certain level of permissiveness.

What I say in my headteacher assembly at the end of year 6 is that I want to give all my children a travelcard to all zones in London. I do not just want to give them a zone 1 and 2 travelcard. We all believe that as school leaders, but sometimes we just have to focus on one thing, or we have to do some crisis management, so there has to be some agility within the system.

Jane Wilson: Can I comment? I think Ofsted has played an important role in that. As a serving inspector, part of the work I do on every inspection is to look at whether the curriculum is meeting the needs of the children; that where modifications have been made, they are appropriate; and that the curriculum the children are receiving is of equal quality to the national curriculum. So I think Ofsted, with the work it is doing, is already enabling that oversight of curriculum entitlement across the country.

[The Chair]

Thank you to the witnesses for the evidence you have given—sorry for the interruption in the middle of it, but we cannot help that.

Examination of Witness

David Thomas gave evidence.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting)

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We will have one final, brief question—hopefully with a brief answer—from Darren Paffey.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

Q The Bill seeks to move on from a fixation on structures and get back to outcomes and wellbeing. If I have understood your earlier comments, you welcome that. Do you think the Bill will sufficiently break that link between a child’s background and their future success? Do you believe that the measures will move us closer to that?

Dame Rachel de Souza: I am delighted with the measures for vulnerable children. I am hopeful for the measures on the schools side, but we need to see a bit more of a vision before I can answer. What is that system going to look like? My recommendation would be focusing on how, in local areas, we can build up and strengthen our local authorities so that they can be the champions of children, particularly vulnerable children, and convene the trusts and the schools so that everyone can work together to share their expertise. If we do that, we will have a great shot at it, and I think it could be really good.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of this session. I know there are other Members who want to get in; I will try to call you during the next session.

Examination of Witnesses

Sir Martyn Oliver, Lee Owston and Yvette Stanley gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Finally, Darren Paffey. We have about 90 seconds left.

[Darren Paffey]

Q Clauses 13 and 14 make provision for the financial oversight of care providers, and clause 9 looks at better regional arrangements for accommodation. What are your views on how effective that will be in improving provision for the care of children?

Katharine Sacks-Jones: As I said earlier, these are welcome measures. There is very little oversight of the providers at the moment, so a number of measures will improve that oversight. The missing piece is that if you do not tackle sufficiency, the power imbalance will still sit in the hands of the providers who provide the majority of homes for children. Greater oversight needs to come alongside improving sufficiency. One way to do that is to have a national strategy, which is missing at the moment. We think the Bill is an opportunity to introduce that.

[Darren Paffey]

Q To what extent does the regional co-operation deal with sufficiency?

Katharine Sacks-Jones: I think there are benefits to be had in regional commissioning. We are concerned to ensure that provision for children is not then condensed in certain areas of a region, which could mean children still being moved great distances. We would like to see a safeguard in the Bill around not moving children far from home unless it is in their interest, to go alongside the new regional co-operation arrangements.

Lynn Perry: I echo some of what Katharine said there. There has to be a focus on outcomes for children in care, and in particular for all providers to be able to demonstrate that they are taking the sort of steps that Katharine describes, which would lead to better outcomes for children. We need to recognise that with 80% of existing provision being provided privately, any sudden exit might also cause some challenges for children. So, the sufficiency piece is really important, but we need to rebuild what I reluctantly describe as the market, to provide care for children in a different way. That will take some time.

[The Chair]

I understand that this session should run until 3.15 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

Q How do you keep it affordable and make sure it is not a barrier?

Rebecca Leek: School uniform is generally very affordable. You are asking a primary school, so we do not have blazers, but certainly it is very affordable. It has never been an issue. We also give away free uniform. I think there are problems in the Bill with the uniform wording.

[Darren Paffey]

Q I want to pick up on the previous point about the curriculum floor. I wonder whether the panel agree that the opportunities of a broad, balanced curriculum that is modern, engaging and offered regardless of the badge and branding over the school door should be available to young people everywhere. Would you consider that a good thing, or would you consider the Bill—as I think Rebecca described it—a reactive, retrograde step?

Rebecca Leek: I do believe that a broad entitlement for children is really important. What I am concerned about is that, first, we do not know what will be in the national curriculum and, secondly, schools sometimes need a little bit of flexibility to maybe not do a couple of subjects because they are addressing something that has happened within their school community over a couple of years or months or a term.

I had a school in south Essex in a trust that I led where we needed to reduce the curriculum for a little while. It was post covid. You may say, “Well, that was covid,” but we do not what is coming. I needed to work with some children in key stage 2 on a slightly narrower curriculum to really help them with their maths and English so that they would be able to access secondary school. That is what we decided to do, and it was an academy school, so I had the freedom to address that. I think that it was a moral duty for me to make sure that they got those core skills, so that they would be able to access a broad and balanced curriculum in the secondary.

I am just very worried about there being these kind of concrete bricks. If there is permissiveness and agility within it, then that is fine. I do agree with the concept of an entitlement for children to a broad and balanced curriculum.

[Darren Paffey]

Q I think we all recognise that there are sometimes staffing issues in particular curriculum areas, but if something gets taken out of the curriculum, particularly at secondary but sometimes at primary, does that not risk equating to a freedom to shut off that opportunity for future generations of children? I know from having taught modern languages that when you lose those staff, you end up not replacing them, and you do not replace the subject on the curriculum. Is that not a risk?

Rebecca Leek: It is a risk. Basically, sometimes schools have to do things that are a bit of an emergency, or to handle a crisis situation. We do not have a factory line of ready-prepared teachers that are already available. We also have fluctuations in pupil numbers. Some years we have to put together years 2 and 3, sometimes we have to put together years 4 and 5, and then the next year we have to put together years 2, 3 and 4 because of the pupil numbers. So we just have to have a certain level to be able to work around. We do not want headteachers to always be worrying in the back of their heads, “Am I allowed to do this? Am I not allowed to do this?” There just needs to be a certain level of permissiveness.

What I say in my headteacher assembly at the end of year 6 is that I want to give all my children a travelcard to all zones in London. I do not just want to give them a zone 1 and 2 travelcard. We all believe that as school leaders, but sometimes we just have to focus on one thing, or we have to do some crisis management, so there has to be some agility within the system.

Jane Wilson: Can I comment? I think Ofsted has played an important role in that. As a serving inspector, part of the work I do on every inspection is to look at whether the curriculum is meeting the needs of the children; that where modifications have been made, they are appropriate; and that the curriculum the children are receiving is of equal quality to the national curriculum. So I think Ofsted, with the work it is doing, is already enabling that oversight of curriculum entitlement across the country.

[The Chair]

Thank you to the witnesses for the evidence you have given—sorry for the interruption in the middle of it, but we cannot help that.

Examination of Witness

David Thomas gave evidence.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Q You have enthused about family group decision making. Do you think it would be useful at other stages in the process, particularly in approaching families for unification at the point of discharge for care leavers?

Dr Homden: Yes, we would support that. We would also call for specific coverage in the statutory guidance on how children with family members abroad can benefit, and for consideration in that guidance on contact, particularly with siblings.

Anne Longfield: I would also look at the mechanism at other points, such as when children are at risk of becoming involved in crime and the like. But for now, yes.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

Q I would like to ask about the requirement for local authorities to offer Staying Close. We have seen some success with that in Southampton, but from the direct work of both your organisations, do you think that the Staying Close offer meets the most pressing needs of care leavers, or are there other things that the Bill should consider?

Anne Longfield: Carol will probably talk about the detail more than I will, but in principle it was a really important change to be made and a really important commitment. Young people I have met have appreciated it and seen the value of it. I do not think it is yet at the point where most care leavers would say that it is meeting all their ambitions, nor of course is it anywhere. Having it as part of the Bill, to extend and strengthen it, is important, but it is there to be built on. We know from the outcomes for young people leaving care that it is crucial that that level of stability and support is in place.

Dr Homden: We support the extension of support to care leavers in the Bill. Provisions need to ensure greater consistency across the country in the support that is offered. It is important that the introduction of Staying Close provisions in this case will be offered to care leavers only where the authority assesses that such support is required. It is also important that that does not dilute the role and responsibilities of personal advisers. Young people speak very passionately in our Bright Spots surveys about the importance of the emotional and practical support that they provide. We must take care that that is not undermined.

Staying Close must mean what is close for the individual. This also extends to the legal duties to publish a local offer, which already exist, but really the question is whether we can achieve greater consistency and transparency for young people. For example, our young people in A National Voice, the national council for children in care, have been campaigning on the fact that almost two years after the Department for Education announced the increase for their setting up home grants, 10% of local authorities are still not applying it. All too often, these young people therefore experience a form of postcode lottery. Finally, our research has shown huge disparity in relation to the appreciation of levels of disability and long-term health conditions among care leavers. This needs to be a key area of focus.

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

Q Family group decision making is a well-evidenced practice, yet this Bill mandates it. Do we really need a Bill to mandate it, especially considering that a lot of children come into these situations when they are at risk of neglect from their carers? Cannot the virtue and the hope of this amendment, and the idea of family group decision making, be instructed through guidance? Does it need to be mandated through a Bill?

Anne Longfield: I think it does need to be mandated, because it is at the cornerstone of the different way of working. It is about intervening earlier. The majority of families in that situation are living with adversity and are not coping with adversity. The whole ambition behind this is to bring in not only parents, but families around them and others.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

It is not part of the Bill, and we have to stick to this Bill.

[Darren Paffey]

Q My question is about qualified teacher status, and the Bill is obviously about either having or working towards that. Do you think it is a reasonable expectation that, whatever your expertise and subject knowledge, if you are teaching, you are trained to teach? Do you think that remains a reasonable expectation?

Julie McCulloch: I think it does in the vast majority of cases, but quite what working towards it looks like needs thinking about to ensure that it does not exacerbate existing crises. The only exception I might look at—I think there may be exceptions for this anyway—is at the very top end of secondary, and going into the college and vocational sphere, where there might be a slightly different set of skills needed in the people teaching those young people. But broadly, as a principle, I would agree.

[Darren Paffey]

Q My main question is about safeguarding. I know from experience that the good relationships between the different agencies, particularly schools and the local authorities, are forged locally, and therefore they depend on almost a bit of a lottery. Do you think that mandating will resolve that issue? Will that satisfy the leaders and the designated safeguarding leads who you speak to that they now have the position and the basis for a much stronger relationship through what is being mandated?

Paul Whiteman: We do. I would not go as far as suggesting that it is a lottery, but there are differences of relationship and of quality of relationship, so putting that on a statutory footing will help. Our one concern is that schools are often seen as the thing that will fill any void that occurs, or that will assume a greater responsibility. This is really about making sure that, through the conversations with those safeguarding teams, all the services that support children are there to help them, and that schools have a voice in that, rather than having to assume some of the responsibilities of the other agencies, as has happened more and more over time. We see it as a positive step, but there is a risk that somehow more and more responsibility is placed on schools, which would not be correct.

Julie McCulloch: I strongly agree with that. We have been doing a lot of work with our members recently about the additional responsibilities that they have been taking on, some of which they have been expected to take on and some of which they have felt that they had no choice but to take on, because the agencies that had normally delivered those services previously no longer exist or have incredibly long waiting lists. The relationships that might be improved through this measure are really important, but there is a huge capacity issue as well.

[Darren Paffey]

Q Are those expectations clear enough?

Julie McCulloch: I think they could probably be clearer.

[Ellie Chowns]

Q The Bill talks about breakfast clubs, but says nothing about free school meals more widely. Would you like to see an expansion of eligibility for free school meals?

Julie McCulloch: We would.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson]

Q We have seen the number of children in care rising really significantly. Looking at the child protection measures, the kinship clauses and the family group conferencing, what do you feel the overall impact of Bill will be on the numbers of children in care?

Jacky Tiotto: It is difficult. We have primary legislation in the Children Act 1989 that says that, in this country, we think the best place for children is growing up in their family or with relatives. When the 30-year review of the Children Act happened, people still signed up to that; this Bill definitely reminds us and provokes that intention again.

The difficulty is that the formality around protecting children is burdensome, rightly so. So in my view some of the construction of this has to be a bit more thoughtful about the children who are going to do well in their families and the children who are not going to stand a chance and need, quickly, to move to permanence and to other places.

Residential care is not doing particularly well for children with very special needs. We struggle to recruit foster carers because the resources around them are not there. It is the shape of what is around those other places, not residential care, that needs to be elevated, in order to reduce the number of children coming into care. Just having family group decision-making conferences or kinship alone is not enough; I do not know anyone saying it is.

I do not know how many of you are familiar with the chief social worker paper from a few years ago called “Care proceedings in England: the case for clear blue water”. A very good, strong case was made for, “Don’t come into court with children where it is going to end up either with them back at home or with a supervision order that gives no statutory power to the local authority. Come into court for the kids that really need a care order and protection and to go somewhere.” We could revisit the extent to which that is an effective situation.

A third of children who come into family proceedings now either remain at home or go back home. I make no judgment about that, but a third of children going through family proceedings is expensive. We need to think about what the point at issue was and what was needed at the time. Will the serving of that order deal with the problem at the time? Often, what has gone wrong in child protection will not be solved by just making a court order, particularly a supervision order. I could be here for a long time on that, but that is another Bill, probably another day.

[Darren Paffey]

Q The Bill proposes a number of measures on illegal children’s homes and a topic you have already mentioned a couple of times—deprivation of liberty, when that does not necessarily need to be in a secure children’s home. What are your reflections on how effective that is going to be in terms of protecting vulnerable children? Do you foresee in particular any impact on family court proceedings if there is now a different outcome in terms of what judges can decide?

Jacky Tiotto: I do not think so, in terms of the strengthening of section 25 of the 1989 Act so that other accommodation can be used that is not a secure children’s home, but I think there is a gross underestimation of how intensive it is to look after those children. That is not just a today thing—it has been coming for 20 years, when we stopped running children’s homes in local authorities, really. The provision of the accommodation in the way that the Bill sets out is good but, as I said before, the issue is about who runs it and how much the staffing costs are for running very specialist provision—

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid that under the programme motion we have to end exactly on time. I apologise. Thank you very much, everybody.

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

The hon. Member is right that there are skills gaps in cyber, digital and tech overall. That is why Skills England will drive forward our work in addressing those skills gaps as well as in ensuring that our young people have great careers in the years to come. That is one area in particular where I know there is lots of opportunity for young people to enjoy a fantastic career.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

Itchen sixth-form college in my constituency was recently judged to be “outstanding” by Ofsted. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the college? Does she agree that future success requires us to sort out financial inconsistencies such as lecturers’ pay and VAT liabilities?

[Bridget Phillipson]

My hon. Friend identifies a number of the challenges that we have inherited as a new Government. We are working as quickly as we can to address them. We want to ensure that teachers right across the sector, whether in our schools, the FE sector or colleges, get the support, the pay and the recognition that they deserve.

Home-to-School Transport: Children with SEND

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this important and oversubscribed debate. Southampton, like many other local authorities, is struggling with the cost of meeting the need. Meeting that need is most important, but costs have trebled in the past few years and council resources are put under immense strain.

I welcome the Education Secretary’s commitment to a whole-system review, with travel a crucial part of that. The Chancellor’s recent investments will have relieved some of the pressure. I would be interested in the Minister’s response on whether the Department for Transport and the Department for Education could speak together and require bus companies to work with local authorities to look at route planning and making public transport more accessible for those for whom independent travel is a possibility. This is about breaking down barriers to opportunity for SEND children; they have to be in school to open those barriers and so that we can meet their needs.

Government and Democracy Education

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[John Slinger]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is a point I had to excise from my speech because I did not think I had the time, but it is very important. As new Members, constituents often bring issues to our attention that would be better dealt with by a councillor or another arm of the state, so it is an important part of the process that we clarify, educate and inform better than we are doing at the moment.

I will complete the quote from the Association for Citizenship Teaching, which goes on to say:

“Re-prioritising this subject in the upcoming review is vital, as it contributes directly to the health of national democracy and the wellbeing of citizens.”

We have a long way to go. Electoral Commission data shows a lack of democratic engagement and understanding among younger audiences, and at a time when the Labour party has pledged to introduce voting at the age of 16, only 16% of 16 and 17-year-olds are on the electoral register and 19% of 16 to 24-year-olds are not confident that they know how to register to vote. Some statistics from the commission are staggeringly worrying: 39% of 16 to 24-year-olds say that they are not interested in politics, and 33% say they do not know very much or anything about politics in the UK.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

Those who measure trust in politics tell us, as we regrettably know, that that trust is at its lowest point in over 40 years. Part of rebuilding that trust is very much about engaging with the curriculum and ensuring that people know who we are, what we do, what the media who report on us so much do and how those institutions work. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the current curriculum and assessment review is a fantastic opportunity to ensure that steps to improve political literacy are built into our future education system?

[John Slinger]

I will come to that point, because I think that the review is a golden opportunity.

The commission confirmed what I and others here know: too many young people do not understand how to participate in our democratic processes, and their lack of motivation is due to a lack of knowledge about parties and candidates. If we want young people to engage more in elections, for their sake and ours, we must work harder to ensure they understand and value our democracy.

Educational Opportunities

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on securing this debate, which is a crucial opportunity to reflect on the steps that we must now take to open up opportunities for all to thrive.

Employers regularly tell me that they are urgently seeking people equipped not just with the skills of today but the skills of tomorrow. They are preparing for new waves of technology, evolving processes and increased automation—preparing for the future. In my constituency of Southampton Itchen we see great examples of that at the National Oceanography Centre and in the transformative technology at Ocean Infinity. Those and many other organisations embody the future that we are building—an economy fit for the 21st century. Only if we plan with intention and foresight for that future will we be able to break down the barriers to opportunity. That is why it is essential that Ministers take advantage of the upcoming curriculum review and the establishment of Skills England to build the foundations of what my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe has set out today and move away from high stakes assessment, pivoting instead towards providing young people in schools with the academic base and the practical, applicable skills and opportunities that exist today and that inspire and excite them.

What might all that look like? It is a curriculum that is fit for, as hon. Members have said, kids with SEND, those with care experience, and those who are young carers. It is about practical skills, including financial and media literacy. It is about an ambitious approach to work experience. It is about realising the value of early visits to sites of industry and creative companies, which really inspire. It is about building resilience in our children and young people.

In my constituency, Southampton college and Itchen college are working hard to equip young people with the qualifications and skills—the apprenticeships—they need and the preparation they deserve. It is institutions such as these that may benefit from the £300 million cash investment that we announced in the Budget. That kind of targeted support and a revamped programme of study and skills development will drive meaningful change in our communities. As someone for whom education made all the difference, and as the proud husband of a secondary school teacher, I know that it all starts with the foundations of education. We can now look forward to real investment in them.

SEND Provision: Hampshire

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. I am still learning about these things, but I believe I may need to refer to my interest as a member of the Education Committee.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy)—my childhood home—for securing this important debate for our county. I fully recognise the picture that he so comprehensively and eloquently set out. As a former council cabinet member for education in Southampton and a proud dad to an amazing SEND child, both my professional and personal experience move me to take part today. I am grateful for the opportunity to do so representing the people of Southampton Itchen— I did move further south in the county a few years ago.

The debate could not have come at a better time. Not only is the need for SEND reform at its greatest after being overlooked by the Conservative Government for 14 years, but the debate follows the announcement of £1 billion of extra SEND funding in yesterday’s Budget, as my hon. Friend mentioned. I do not intend to repeat the points he made, but I will take this opportunity to share three reflections from my experience that hopefully contribute to a way forward for SEND children and their families in Southampton and across the county.

I will start by saying as clearly as I can that inclusion in mainstream schools is the right approach for many. However, the metrics around schools must change. I can tell Members what inclusion is not: it is not just putting a child with SEND in a mainstream classroom and then, “Job done!” It is not just a box to tick or a target to meet; it is a fundamental shift in how we think about education—not only how we define school success but, far more importantly, each child having the opportunities they deserve opened up to them.

Our current metrics of attainment 8 and progress 8 often fall short in recognising a school’s full achievements. In Southampton Itchen, and I am sure in other parts of the county, we have seen promising improvements in school performance, and schools are making remarkable strides towards inclusivity, but the performance metrics often do not reflect that. Teachers are working incredibly hard to meet the needs of students with special educational needs and disabilities, tailoring their classroom approach to ensure that those students are not left behind in their learning journey. Yet those efforts—that dedication, adaptability and commitment to inclusivity of our teaching staff—are somehow not considered a measure of a school’s success. I want to argue that they absolutely are and should be.

In our very welcome Ofsted reforms, will the Minister consider how we might ensure that not just statistics, but inclusive practices that open up opportunities for SEND children, count towards the new report cards? In that way, we can expand measures from just academic achievement to educational practice that makes a difference to whether SEND children have the opportunity they need and deserve.

My second point is on the National Audit Office report mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. Some 1.7 million young people are identified as having special educational needs and disabilities in UK schools, but the report notes that there have been no consistent improvements since 2019 in outcomes for those children and young people. That is a huge swathe of our children—our future—that cannot, should not and must not be left behind.

In Southampton Itchen, the rate of growth in the number of children with SEND is outpacing the national average. Dealing with that increased need inclusively in mainstream schools relies on adequate teacher training and teachers’ preparedness for future trends. Yet the current national standards require teacher trainees to spend just one day of their placement in a SEND setting. Contrast that with what they face in the mainstream classroom, where one in five school pupils in England has identified special needs. There needs to be much more attention to the needs of those children and much more preparation in teachers’ professional development.

The professional evidence is that when we get the inclusive approach right, the benefit is felt not just in the outcomes for SEND children, but by all children. Will the Minister consider revising the initial teacher training framework so that all new teachers coming to Hampshire and other parts of the country will have received training on how they can best support, draw out the best in, and provide the greatest strides forward for those who will be in their care in the classroom? We must ensure that teachers’ needs for comprehensive training and support are met to empower them to meet pupils’ needs.

Finally, no discussion of the issue can avoid money completely. Resourcing has been a key issue in recent years. In particular, independent SEND provision is growing. While we recognise that those places are needed, it means that councils are at the mercy of market prices set by market providers. No one in their right mind would deny those children the provision they need, but it puts a significant strain on council budgets dedicated to SEND children. Yesterday’s announcement of £1 billion in extra funding is a welcome and much-needed step but, if we are to make the most of the investment, we need to ensure that it supports state-funded special schools and mainstream schools with inclusive practices, so that every child can make the strides they need and deserve, and gets the support that they are due.

We are not just talking about more money. Schools in my constituency tell me that they need certainty about what will happen with the proposed national funding formula and top-ups. Can the Minister give a timeline of when we can expect that certainty to come? Can she also confirm what will happen to the statutory override for the dedicated schools grant?

We must get this right if the Labour Government are to achieve our mission of breaking down the barriers to education and opportunity that too many SEND children face. I am aware of the scale of the challenge, and no one is more aware of it than the families in the Public Gallery today. It is my belief that the Government will deliver the long overdue changes for families here and in my constituency seeking support for their children with SEND.

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

The changes that we have set out and are determined to make all aim to improve the situation that we have inherited, after 14 years of neglect and decline under the previous Government. I have set out at length all the changes that we seek to make through legislation—and the changes we have already made—to our education system to ensure an inclusive mainstream, and high and rising standards and opportunities for all.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

Today’s report is damning but not surprising. It is an indictment of the former Government and their 14 years of failure. Even today, they shamelessly deflect and gaslight the very families whom they have failed. Independent SEND provision is growing in Southampton Itchen and across the country. Those places are needed, but councils are left at the mercy of market price and—often, when it comes to residential care—venture capitalists. That is wrong. Does the Minister agree that as part of whole-system reform we must return to basics, and that profiteering from SEND is the wrong approach? Will she meet me and my constituents to hear what they want from this whole-system reform?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises an important challenge that we are determined to address. We want mainstream inclusive education in our state school system, which every child should have access to and thrive in. However, we need specialist places for children with complex needs when that is the only place where their needs can be met, and a system that not only best serves the needs of children but is sustainable. I will take away his comments, and that will be part of our thinking as we go ahead.

Government’s Childcare Expansion

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

I always enjoy responding to questions from the hon. Gentleman. On my visit in April to Belfast, I heard that childcare is a huge issue for the community. I assure him that there is more we can do to support our colleagues in Northern Ireland. We have already committed to a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss these issues.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome these measures, which will do an awful lot to help hard-pressed families in my constituency. Does he agree that the Conservatives suffer from something of a blind spot in looking back at their record, which contains years in which funding fell short of the delivery costs? They ignore the exodus of early years professionals and the fact that 1,400 Sure Start centres have been closed, yet they continue to believe that we have never had it so good. Will the Minister join me in thanking early years professionals in Southampton Itchen, who can finally count on a Government who are child-centred, and could he outline how these measures will be targeted at so-called childcare deserts?